Skip to comments.
Even Harry Potter Pic Loses Money Because Of Warner Bros' Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting
Deadline Hollywood Daily ^
| July 6, 2010
| Nikki Finke
Posted on 07/07/2010 11:17:18 AM PDT by C19fan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
OMG. The WB claims they spent $131 MM on marketing and $315 MM in negative costs??? Production should of been in the $150 MM - $200 MM range.
1
posted on
07/07/2010 11:17:24 AM PDT
by
C19fan
To: C19fan
The CBO would be happy to confirm that none of their movies ever makes a profit.
2
posted on
07/07/2010 11:26:42 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
("The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
To: C19fan
Oh, please. Nikki Finke has been around long enough to know this is the way the studios do their accounting. "Lord of the Rings" made billions, but because of accounting procedures at New Line it will never show a profit so it can't pay the actors who have merchandising deals with the studio. I know because I get the quarterly accounting statements.
Its show-biz 101, if you have a backend or net deal on a movie, you have worthless paper.
3
posted on
07/07/2010 11:27:19 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: Deb
True enough but I have never seen some actual numbers before.
4
posted on
07/07/2010 11:28:52 AM PDT
by
C19fan
To: Deb
As David Mamet said, “There is no Net.”
This really came out in the Art Buchwald “Coming to America” plagiarism trial.
5
posted on
07/07/2010 11:34:37 AM PDT
by
MediaMole
To: C19fan
Its pretty funny really. First I always to check to make sure the “Total Profit” number is, as usual, “0”, then I try to figure out how they came to it. Not easy when the three movies took in over 6 billion dollars, but they manage it every quarter.
6
posted on
07/07/2010 11:35:27 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: MediaMole
Exactly right. Buchwald didn't care how much money it took or how many years they stalled, he was determined to go all the way. It only got him a fraction of what he spent, but he died a happy man.
Jim Garner is another one who had a % of "The Rockford Files" and couldn't understand why he never saw a penny even though the show ran in syndication and overseas for decades. He fought an extraordinary battle to get to Universal's "third set of books" and finally won after years and years.
Its always a gamble to launch these fights because the studios will do their best to make sure you never work again.
7
posted on
07/07/2010 11:42:44 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: C19fan
This is an open secret in the business. Everyone knows this except illiterate noobs, and they are the only ones who get burned by it.
No sympathy.
Read any book on the film biz, and it will tell you about this practice.
Here's another secret: Avatar didn't cost $1 billion either.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
8
posted on
07/07/2010 11:49:36 AM PDT
by
The Comedian
(Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
To: C19fan
Damn, I want THOSE accountants to work on my tax returns!
9
posted on
07/07/2010 11:52:23 AM PDT
by
Cyman
To: C19fan
Culture of corruption. Crooked books. Been that way for decades.
Funny how a film “never turns a profit” (so the screenwriter et al don’t have to be paid any bonus on a box-office hit) yet they will up for 3 sequels right away.
No one throws that much money down a drain trying to make a loss profitable.
Well, no one except Obama.
10
posted on
07/07/2010 11:57:46 AM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: C19fan
So when will Congress investigate “Big Film” and the shady business practices of Hollywood?.. oh wait, there is nothing to see here... keep it moving...
11
posted on
07/07/2010 11:59:13 AM PDT
by
Nat Turner
(I can see NOVEMBER from my house....)
To: C19fan
Hollywood Reds love “redistributing” the wealth.
And yet if a “protected” director or star’s project tanks, the loss can be written against some smaller (or blacklisted) filmmaker’s project crippling his own career.
12
posted on
07/07/2010 12:00:09 PM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: Nat Turner
Big Media doesn’t pay songwriters or recording artists their royalties either.
Remember that the next time the industry gets uppitty about how bootlegging is huring performers. It doesn’t help them much but their own labels screw them worse than any other criminal enterprise.
Send in an accountant and you’ll never go away empty handed.
13
posted on
07/07/2010 12:03:49 PM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: C19fan
14
posted on
07/07/2010 12:04:07 PM PDT
by
Smogger
To: C19fan
Though the film grossed $938.2 million worldwide, the accounting statement below conveys that the film is still over $167 million in the red. The good Marxists in Hollywood want higher taxes for you, but they won't be paying income taxes since they are losing money on every film.
15
posted on
07/07/2010 12:08:23 PM PDT
by
RJL
To: a fool in paradise
This is yet another example of the corruption and "crony capitalism" that keeps feeding the left and their associated libtards. The only way we will get this country back is starve the beast...I bet if consumer spending fell by 50%, I'm sure the government would get the message about cutting the budget .
16
posted on
07/07/2010 12:10:12 PM PDT
by
Nat Turner
(I can see NOVEMBER from my house....)
To: C19fan
Imagine how the recent history of movies might have been if George Lucas had developed “Star Wars” from within this kind of system. Given that it took his profits from this movie and its offspring to build Industrial Lighting and Magic as well as the foundations of Pixar, we can imagine how different things might have been without his ownership of Star Wars licensing rights.
17
posted on
07/07/2010 12:14:49 PM PDT
by
SES1066
(Cycling to conserve, Conservative to save, Saving to Retire, will Retire to Cycle.)
To: Nat Turner
It has nothing to do with “capitalism”. It is outright redistribution.
Shell-game socialism.
The Politburo in Russia and in Orwell’s Animal Farm lived high.
Not everyone is poor under Communism.
18
posted on
07/07/2010 12:15:53 PM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
To: C19fan
The WB claims they spent $131 MM on marketing and $315 MM in negative costs??? Any bets on whether WB owns the marketing and negatives companies they contracted with?
What should a studio executive do if his movie makes a net profit? Shoot the accounting department as a warning to future accountants... and then charge the bullets' cost against the net.
19
posted on
07/07/2010 12:15:53 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
To: Deb
How do they hide that much money?
20
posted on
07/07/2010 12:22:06 PM PDT
by
chuck_the_tv_out
( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson